Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Guinea (Ratification: 1959)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report. It recalls that its previous comments concerned the following points:

Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention.  The Committee had previously observed that, while public transport and communications do not in themselves constitute essential services in the strict sense of the term, they appear on the list contained in Order No. 5680/MTASE/DNTLS/95 of 24 October 1995 which defines and determines essential services in the context of the exercise of the right to strike. In this regard, the Committee requested the Government to indicate, in cases where the parties do not manage to reach an agreement on the negotiated minimum service, the measures envisaged for a joint independent body to examine rapidly and without formalities the difficulties raised in the determination of the minimum service.

In addition, the Committee recalled that arbitration at the request of one of the parties, in this case the employer (sections 342, 350 and 351 of the Labour Code), was likely to restrict the exercise of the right to strike, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. In this regard, the Committee requested the Government to take measures in order to ensure that arbitration could not be imposed at the request of only one of the parties to a dispute. Finally, the Committee requested the Government to continue to provide information on the application in practice of the above sections of the Labour Code and of Order No. 5680/MTASE/DNTLS/95 of 24 October 1995.

The Committee notes that, according to the information contained in the Government’s report, the Order of 24 October 1995 was discussed and adopted by the Advisory Commission on Labour and Labour Legislation, which is a tripartite structure. While in legal terms arbitration at the request of one of the parties, in this case the employer, may restrict the exercise of the right to strike, the Government emphasizes that in practice such arbitration has never extended beyond the scope of labour inspections. Finally, the Government states that it will take the Committee’s comments into account in the revision of the Labour Code.

The Committee notes this information. With regard to the determination of essential services in the context of the right to strike in public transport and communications, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate, in cases where the parties do not reach an agreement on a negotiated minimum level of service, the measures which have been taken or are envisaged for a joint independent body to examine rapidly and without formalities the difficulties raised by the definition of such a minimum service (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 161). With regard to recourse to arbitration imposed by one of the parties to the conflict, the Committee once again requests the Government to continue to provide it with information on the application in practice of sections 342, 350 and 351 of the Labour Code and requests it to keep it informed of any measures which are taken or envisaged concerning the amendment of the Labour Code on this matter, with a view to ensuring that recourse to arbitration can be imposed by one of the parties to a conflict, in both law and practice, only in cases in which the right to strike may be limited or even prohibited, that is in essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 159), or in the event of an acute national crisis.